ORDER
1. Petitioner was a workman employed as a Stores Attender in the canteen run by second respondent company at Mount Road. He was charge sheeted on 10th November, 1976 stating that, on that day at about 9.30 a.m. when he was searched by the watchman, he was concealing in his hip pocket 102 canteen coupons valued at Rs. 24.48 and which have not been punched and, therefore, which could be used and having thus removed it to a place away from the counting place, he had contravened Certified Standing Order 23(4), which relates to theft, fraud or dishonesty in connection with the Company’s business or, property, and, therefore, he was called upon to submit his explanation. By his explanation dated 11th November, 1980 he admitted that he had carried in his hip pocket the coupons instead of leaving them at the place where he was counting, mainly because some bags had come and rain also having set in, he had to go away from the place of counting and when he was unloading the rice bags, the Manager had brought the watchman and seized the coupons from his custody. This had turned out to be a mistake for which he regrets and having not committed any derelictions in the past 17 years, he should not be proceeded against. Thereafter, an oral enquiry was conducted in which two Supervisors, a watchman, a Welfare Manager and an Assistant were examined. On behalf of petitioner, one of his friends was examined. Ultimately, an order of dismissal was passed, but after a reference was made to first respondent, it resulted in the punishment being modified as one of termination of service and directing the company to compensate him by paying one year’s salary. Aggrieved against this award, this writ petition is preferred.
2. Mr. Devadas, learned counsel for Petitioner/workman strenuously pleads that for a trivial dereliction alleged, a disproportionate punishment had been awarded and inspite of wide powers conferred upon the Tribunal under S. 11A instead of ordering reinstatement and granting continuity of service and backwages, the impugned order as passed, is unjust and illegal. He submits that even assuming that there was theft, when the value of coupons involved is hardly Rs. 24.48, the punishment imposed by Tribunal is unreasonable.
3. Regarding charge of theft, both the Disciplinary Authority and the Tribunal, on a meticulous analysis of evidence on record, have held that the charge had been proved. Once such a finding is rendered, which is an offence punishable under Indian Penal Code, it would be against interests of other workmen and industrial development, if adequate punishments are not imposed when offences under Indian Penal Code are established. He could have been prosecuted. Company having chosen to proceed by a domestic enquiry, based on the Standing Order, this Court considers that there is very little scope for any generosity to be shown or to bring into existence minor punishments for such derelictions. Committing theft had been considered as a penal offence in the interest of society to maintain law and order in the country and to strike out standards, when they occur in industries, would be detrimental to the interests of the Nation, if a different approach is made mainly because he is a workman under I.D. Act. Hence, the punishment imposed by the Tribunal, is rather on the concessional side, and the fervent plea put forth by Mr. Devadas, learned counsel for petitioner, to order reinstatement is an unreasonable contention.
4. Learned counsel would then attach the finding of theft itself by claiming that the plausible and truthful explanation put forth by petitioner had been unreasonably rejected. His admission in Ex. M-2 dated 11th November, 1973, the gist of which had already been referred to brings about the acceptance of what had happened. He does not resile from that statement. Therefore, the evidence tendered by M.Ws. 1 to 5 about seizure of 102 coupons from petitioner and they having been found in his hip pocket on 10th November, 1973 at 9.30 a.m., had rightly found favour with the Disciplinary Authority and the Tribunal as well. Hence, the very limited aspect which called for consideration was whether his explanation was acceptable. He claims that he had no intention to utilise the coupons. He had removed them from a place which was ear-marked for counting. Before they could be cancelled by punching, he had put them in his hip pocket. He would state that he wanted to recount. Even so, he could have left them at the counting spot instead of carrying them in his pocket. This explanation was unconvincing and the only witness whom he had examined being of very little assistance in supporting his claim, the finding arrived at is one which a reasonable man would necessarily arrive at and, therefore, there was no perverse inner finding. This is not a case where there was no material to arrive at the finding because a substantial part of what has been alleged against him has been admitted by him M-2. As for the nature of witnesses examined by the company, two of them are Supervisors, one is the watchman who apprehended him, one is a Welfare Manager and the other was an Assistant. All of them being responsible personnel of the company against whom no motive having them alleged or proved, the finding of the Tribunal that he had contravened Standing Order 23(4) does not call for any interference. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed with costs. A workman who is found guilty of having committed theft does not deserve sympathy and has to pay costs. Hence, counsel fee is fixed at Rs. 250/-.